Literature DB >> 20579999

Delivery route preferences of urban women of low socioeconomic status.

Bela Kudish1, Shobha Mehta, Michael Kruger, Evie Russell, Robert J Sokol.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify the main determinants of mode of delivery preference among urban dwelling women of lower socioeconomic status (SES).
METHODS: Over a 12-month period, a self-completion 36-item questionnaire was administered to a convenience sample of 308 women within the first 3 postpartum days. Non-parametric tests were used for analysis.
RESULTS: Study participants were mostly African American (>85%), single mothers (>75%), and unemployed (≥55%). Among the women, 85.7% had vaginal delivery (VD) and 14.3% had cesarean delivery (CD). Women who preferred CD (10%) were more likely to be concerned about a vaginal tear/episiotomy during VD, forceps, and a "big" baby compared with women who preferred VD, for whom "pushing the baby out myself" and "fear of cesarean" were the most important factors. In the final model of 7 factors, the 3 main factors found to positively impact maternal preference for CD were a vaginal cut during VD (P<0.001), higher mean BMI (P=0.001), and cesarean as the most recent delivery type (P<0.001). The total explained variance by this model was 46%.
CONCLUSIONS: Short-term complications of a VD, higher BMI, and a previous cesarean delivery are the most significant factors that impact the preferences of women of lower SES for future mode of delivery.
Copyright © 2010 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20579999      PMCID: PMC3046369          DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.04.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet        ISSN: 0020-7292            Impact factor:   3.561


  24 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of elective cesarean delivery after one prior low transverse cesarean.

Authors:  W A Grobman; A M Peaceman; M L Socol
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Pelvic organ support in pregnancy and postpartum.

Authors:  Amy L O'Boyle; John D O'Boyle; Byron Calhoun; Gary D Davis
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2004-07-31

Review 3.  Low-income mothers, nutrition and health: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.

Authors:  Pamela Attree
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Public health implications of cesarean on demand.

Authors:  Lauren A Plante
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Surv       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.347

5.  Trends in maternal request cesarean delivery from 1991 to 2004.

Authors:  Ginger L Gossman; Jutta M Joesch; Koray Tanfer
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Women's preference for a cesarean section: incidence and associated factors.

Authors:  J A Gamble; D K Creedy
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.689

7.  Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences: Conducted January-February 2006 for Childbirth Connection by Harris Interactive(R) in partnership with Lamaze International.

Authors:  Eugene R Declercq; Carol Sakala; Maureen P Corry; Sandra Applebaum
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2007

8.  Sexual function 6 months after first delivery.

Authors:  Linda Brubaker; Victoria L Handa; Catherine S Bradley; AnnaMarie Connolly; Pamela Moalli; Morton B Brown; Anne Weber
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section.

Authors:  Ingegerd Hildingsson; Ingela Rådestad; Christine Rubertsson; Ulla Waldenström
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 6.531

10.  ACOG Committee Opinion No. 394, December 2007. Cesarean delivery on maternal request.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 7.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.